Romans 4 CJB righteousness by trust-in rather than obedience-to

 

Romans 4 CJB righteousness by trust-in rather than obedience-to

Guide: CJB New Testament emphasis in bold (CJB online) or Old Testament OJB, text I emphasize in green; NIV in magenta; OJB in olive. footnotes to CJB in superscript sky blue and OJB; Nomads* discussion in yellow; and my comments in gray. I may use endnotes to cite outside literature or extensive comment.  

*Participative Sunday-school-class at UBC led by Kenny Tipton. Kenny appreciates opinion in a continuous search for the ineluctable truth. My evolving statement about Genesis 1:26-28,31, now from OJB, is at the end of this post. Also, this report is the first after I discovered Psalm 82, OJB, which in my view affirms that because I accept Genesis 1’s directive to constrain chaos in my way of living I am a god facing death. I will post this under a new label, Genesis-1’s Psalm 82.

This is the second week of  new series starting examination of words that are key to Bible study. Last week’s word was “salvation” and this week’s is “righteousness”.

Key opinions:

1.    Typical religious usage is negative, such as “self-righteous”. An exemplary secular usage is “righteous indignation”.

2.    Paul craftily omits Hagar and Ishmael from Abrams’ decisions to mistrust Hashem. By omission, Paul claims that Hagar’s descendants are Sarah’s privation rather than Abram’s.

3.    Paul speculates that since Abram was blessed before circumcision at age 99, The God blesses Abram’s descendants whether circumcised or not.

4.    Neither neglecting Hagar’s story nor using Sarah to shield Abram’s guilt justifies 2025 enmity toward Arabs.

5.    Genesis 14-17 seems to present the view that neither civil authority nor national god can substitute for good behavior, in order to establish righteousness (civicality rather than civility) before whatever constrains the consequences of human choices; we can trust our goodness and reject Paul’s boasts.

6.    I think Paul in Romans 4 makes no sense because he attempts to skirt reality.

a.    The Bible expresses The God’s word; the ineluctable truth is timeless.

b.    Taking Yeshua as the expression of necessary goodness, chiefly through Matthew 5:48, I think a student like me may and can humbly construct continuity from the judge in Genesis 1:31 OJB through Revelation 22:18-20 CJB. I don’t know the ineluctable truth.

c.     In other words, Yeshua pursued necessary goodness, and Paul’s imposition of Christ cannot lessen trust in Yeshua.

Key points from the text

·         V3 Childless Abraham believed Hashem’s promise that Abraham’s descendants would be countless.

o   V4-5 Abraham was trusting Hashem’s grace rather than taking civil action, so Hashem considered Abraham righteous.

o   One of Kenny’s commentaries prompts me to think “grace” refers to civic behavior; that is, a person treats others as he or she would like to be treated. Paul might say that civic integrity is Hashem’s gift.

·         V6 Likewise, David’s blessing extends to those who received Hashem’s grace.

·         V8 NIV’s “the Lord” in place of CJB’s “Adonai” could be Yeshua, influencing people before Yeshua was born.

·         V9 introduces Paul’s argument that grace is for pagans (Gentiles) as well as Jews; uncircumcised as well as circumcised.

o   V11 with new footnote, Abram was circumcised when his son, Ishmael, was 13 years old. In 2025, both Arabs and Jews believe in circumcision.

o   V12 the covenant granted the uncircumcised Abram accrues to descendants who trust Hashem as Abram did.

o   V13 descendants who trust Hashem as Abram did inherit the world

o   V14 civil obedience is insufficient to the grace of civic integrity

o   V15 Paul expresses fallacy: civic integrity is useless

·         V19 Paul overlooks Hagar altogether. Behold Israel at war in 2025.

o   V20 attributing Hagar to Sarah does not verify Abram’s “glory to God”.

·         V24 Paul is writing about Yeshua’s resurrection after the event. There’s no trust after a happening. And “because of our offenses” is Paul’s conjecture.

 

The CJB text with comments:

^4:1 Then what should we say Avraham, our forefather, obtained by his own efforts? ² For if Avraham came to be considered righteous by God because of legalistic observances works, then he has something to boast about. But this is not how it is before God! ³ For what does the Tanakh Scripture say? “Avraham put his trust in God believed God, and it was credited to his account as righteousness.”^{[Genesis 15:6, “And he believed in Hashem; and He credited [emunah (faith)] to him as tzedakah (righteousness).”] 4} Now the account of someone who is working is credited not on the ground of grace but on the ground of what is owed him an obligation. ⁵ However, in the case of one who is not working but rather is trusting in him who makes ungodly people righteous, his trust is credited to him as righteousness.

⁶ In the same way, the blessing which David pronounces is on those whom God credits with righteousness apart from legalistic observances:

⁷ “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered over;
⁸ Blessed is the man whose sin Adonai the Lord
will not reckon against his account.”^{[Psalm 32:1–2, “(Of David. A maskil). Ashrei is he whose peysha (rebellion) is forgiven, whose chata’ah (sin) is covered. Ashrei is the adam unto whom Hashem imputeth not avon (iniquity), and in whose ruach there is no remiyyah (guile, deceit).”]}

⁹ Now is this blessing for the circumcised only? Or is it also for the uncircumcised? For we say that Avraham’s trust was credited to his account as righteousness; ¹⁰ but what state was he in when it was so credited — circumcision or uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision! ¹¹ In fact, he received circumcision as a sign, as a seal of the righteousness he had been credited with on the ground of the trust faith he had while he was still uncircumcised. ^{[Genesis 17:24-27, “Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, and his son Ishmael was thirteen; Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that very day. And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.”]} This happened so that he could be the father of every uncircumcised person who trusts and thus has righteousness credited to him, ¹² and at the same time be the father of every circumcised person who not only has had a b’rit-milah circumcision, but also follows in the footsteps of the trust which Avraham avinu had when he was still uncircumcised.

¹³ For the promise to Avraham and his seed^{[Genesis 15:3, 5, “And Avram said, See, to me Thou hast given no zera; and, hinei, one born in my bais is my yoresh (heir). And He brought him forth outside, and said, Look now toward Shomayim, and count the kokhavim, if thou be able to number them; and He said unto him, So shall thy zera be.”]} offspring that he would inherit the world did not come through legalism but through the righteousness that trust produces. ¹⁴ For if the heirs are produced by legalism, then trust is pointless and the promise worthless. ¹⁵ For what law brings is punishment wrath. But where there is no law, there is also no violation transgression. [Paul is simply, blatantly wrong. If a citizen invents a novel way to harm a fellow citizen, the offender was civically violent. Civil justice is served if new legislation constrains if not prevents future civic offenses.]

¹⁶ The reason the promise is based on trusting is so that it may come as God’s free gift grace, a promise that can be relied on by all the seed, not only those who live within the framework of the Torah, but also those with the kind of trust Avraham had — Avraham avinu for all of us. ¹⁷ This accords with the Tanakh, where it says, “I have appointed you to be a father to many nations.”^{[Genesis 17:5, “Neither shall thy shem any more be called Avram, but thy shem shall be Avraham; for Av hamon Goyim (Father of a multitude of Goyim) have I made thee. [T.N. Ga 3:29 says “And if you belong to Moshiach (YESHAYAH 53:10), then you are of the ZERAH of Avraham Avinu, you are yoreshim (heirs) according to the havtachah (promise).]”]} Avraham is our father in God’s sight because he trusted God as the one who gives life to the dead and calls nonexistent things into existence. ¹⁸ For he was past hope, yet in hope he trusted that he would indeed become a father to many nations, in keeping with what he had been told, “So many will your seed be.”^{[ [Genesis 15:5, “Look now toward Shomayim, and count the kokhavim, if thou be able to number them; and He said unto him, So shall thy zera be.”] 19} His trust did not waver when he considered his own body — which was as good as dead, since he was about a hundred years old — or when he considered that Sarah’s womb was dead too. [Paul totally overlooks Abram’s wavering to sleep with Hagar 13 years before Abram was circumcised. The story has Sarah suggesting the infidelity yet does not remove Abram’s vainglory. ] ²⁰ He did not by lack of trust decide against God’s promises. On the contrary, by trust he was given power as he gave glory to God, ²¹ for he was fully convinced that what God had promised he could also accomplish. ²² This is why it was credited to his account as righteousness.^{[ Genesis 15:6, “And he believed in Hashem; and He credited [emunah (faith)] to him as tzedakah (righteousness).”}

²³ But the words, “it was credited to his account . . . ,” were not written for him only. ²⁴ They were written also for us, who will certainly have our account credited too, because we have trusted in him who raised Yeshua our Lord from the dead — ²⁵ Yeshua, who was delivered over to death because of our offences and raised to life in order to make us righteous for our justification.

[Genesis 1:26-28, 31 OJB:

I read to consider and apply perhaps 5500 year old Sumerian political philosophy, religiously referenced by Semite (pre-Israel) scribes of 3900 years ago, in Genesis 1:26-28, 31, in my paraphrase and extension to law:  

Female-and-male-human-being may and can choose to practice the power, the authority, and the responsibility to pursue necessary goodness and constrain wickedness on earth. Civic citizens may and can use the rule of law to develop statutory justice. And that is good. 

Political and religious philosopher Yeshua affirmed Genesis 1:26-28, 31, contributing ideas in each Matthew 18:18 (no peace-power above humankind), Matthew 19:3-8 (mutual spousal-loyalty), Matthew 5:48 (in good behavior, pursue personal perfection, which also affirms Deuteronomy 18:13), Matthew 19:4-6 (don’t divide/lessen goodness), John 10:34 (humans who resist and avoid wickedness are gods facing death, as in Psalm 82:1-7), and in other direct dialogue, such as “go and sin no more”. Psalm 82 says nothing about resurrection.

Discussion

I think Genesis 1:26-28, 31 informs humankind to flourish in necessary goodness rather than accommodate badness and allow evil. Quoting OJB below,

And G-d said, Let Us make man in Our tzelem, after Our demut: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon ha’aretz (the earth).

So G-d created humankind in His own tzelem, in the tzelem Elohim (image of G-d) created He him; zachar (male) and nekevah (female) created He them.

And G-d blessed them, and G-d said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. See note, below.

Accepting the power, the authority, and the responsibility to have dominion over life on earth is human being (verb). Reliable human-beings choose necessary goodness to actual reality. The God judges the goodness in V 31:

And G-d saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was tov me’od (very good).

Note: OJB uses “Elohim” in Genesis 1 and 2, excepting “G-d” in 1:24-31. V 27 seems to equate the two entities. Septuagint uses “ὁ θεὸς”, or God throughout Genesis 1. I use “The God, or whatever constrains human choice”, hoping to express humility to whatever The God is.

Since theism is a human construct, I use the phrase, “the god, whatever it may be”, to express objection to any doctrinal God yet reserve humility to ineluctable evidence and remaining unknowns about that which constrains the consequences of human choices.]